Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Digital vs. film cost
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:58:07 -0500
References: <CA4A3527.12141%mark@rabinergroup.com> <28702F42-C73F-4A92-BD28-207F1949F4A5@mac.com> <048FD405-9514-4A94-AA22-82ABBAF3B80D@archiphoto.com>

On Jul 19, 2011, at 1:57 AM, Henning Wulff wrote:

> And sometimes I had to do a ring around with filtration for indoor 
> architectural work with mixed lighting, which multiplied that times 9.

Also why I didn't think twice about investing $1K into a color temperature 
meter, with strobe attachment. Which could then save me a whole lot of film 
testing.

> That's why I also shot colour neg as soon as it started to do a good job. 
> Fine tuning of colour and exposure could be done in the lab; shooting time 
> decreased to 1/2 or 1/3 and material costs dropped to 5-10%.

Oh so true. We transferred our head aches to our custom lab BFF (best friend 
forever)

;~)

And when digital began "closing down" the custom labs
we were quite literally left with no choice.

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist







Replies: Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)